[CLC-Discussion] Lien question

Mon Dec 2 09:11:09 PST 2019

The *Proper Payments* defense would apply (i.e. reducing owner's lien
liability) as to all proper payments made, plus the cost of completing the
contract resulting from Roofer's defective construction.   If the amount of
proper payments when added to the reasonable cost to correct and complete
exceeds contract price, then no monies are available in connection with the
supplier's lien.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.

*Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator*

Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek at reklawfirm.com <rekesq at gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info

*Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.*

*NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
*CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:29 AM Steve Thompson <
sthompson at thompsonbrookslaw.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that the materials are not defective.  As a result,
> the contract price cannot be reduced by the cost of the materials
> (including roofer’s markup).  The supplier is just as innocent as the
> homeowner who hired the roofer.  Did owner pay ½ before or after the NTO?
> While it is unfortunate that owner will have to purchase additional
> materials as a result of roofer’s defective work, and that cost is
> certainly part of the damages claim against roofer, in my opinion the lien
> is valid.  Just my 2 cents from someone who represents  a variety of
> suppliers.
>
>
>
> *Steven F. Thompson, Esq.*
> *Thompson Commercial Law Group*
> 412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
> Tampa, Fl. 33602
> 813-387-1821
> Fax 813-387-1824
>
> THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A  CONFIDENTIAL
> AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
> RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
> IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY OUR OFFICE BY TELEPHONE
> AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
> AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
> BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
> SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
> DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
> WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON COMMERCIAL LAW GROUP.
>
> THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <
> clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> *On Behalf Of *Gibbons,
> Michael
> *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2019 10:42 AM
> *To:* 'Brian Bennett' <brian at bennettlegalgroup.com>;
> clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien question
>
>
>
>
>
> Under 713.01(7) the Contract Price is subject to reduction by amounts
> attributable to “defects in workmanship or materials”.  Owner may not use
> LDs to reduce the  Contract Price as to any other lienor but the statute
> impliedly permits an Owner  to reduce the Contract Price as to subs and
> suppliers for defective work unrelated to LDs.  In your case, it appears
> homeowner may have to essentially pay twice for one roof and the cost of
> the new roof may serve to reduce the Contract Price of the original Direct
> Contract that was defectively performed by the original roofer.
>
>
>
> *Michael R. Gibbons*
>
> *Shareholder*
>
> *215 N. Eola Drive*
>
> *Orlando, FL 32801*
>
> *D:* 407.418.6378 | *P:* 407.843.4600
>
> Email <michael.gibbons at lowndes-law.com> | Website
> <https://www.lowndes-law.com/> | Bio
> <https://www.lowndes-law.com/professionals/michael-r-gibbons> | *LinkedIn*
> | vCard
> <https://www.lowndes-law.com/professionals/michael-r-gibbons-vcard>
>
> [image: Lowndes-logo-Web]
>
> *LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM*
>
>
>
> *From:* clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [
> mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org>] *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Bennett
> *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> *Subject:* [CLC-Discussion] Lien question
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL *
>
>
>
> Homeowner hires a roofer.  Roofer orders roof tile from supplier.  Roofer
> installs roof.  However, underlayment and other problems with installation
> cause roof to be rejected by county inspector and the roof needs to be
> replaced.  There is nothing wrong with the roof tile, but it may not be
> salvageable when roof is redone and new tile will likely be required.
>
>
>
> Roofer never paid for the original roof tile (homeowner paid ½ the
> contract price to roofer, but roofer never paid the supplier).  Supplier
> liens the house.  I think I know the answer, but is there any defense to
> the supplier’s lien based on the defective installation by the roofer thus
> rendering the original tile largely unusable?  The lien appears to be
> proper in all technical respects.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian W. Bennett
>
> Board Certified Construction Attorney
>
> Bennett Legal Group, P.A.
>
> Construction & Business Litigation
>
> 214 South Lucerne Circle East, Suite 201
>
> Orlando, Florida  32801
>
> Direct 407-734-4553
>
> General 407-734-4559
>
> Fax   407-209-1006
>
> www.bennettlegalgroup.com
>
>
>
> The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged
> and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named.  If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
> the communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
> communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
> 407-734-4559or reply email and delete this message.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Notice of Confidentiality:* This e-mail communication and the
> attachment(s) hereto, if any, are intended solely for the information and
> use of the addressee(s) identified above and may contain information which
> is legally privileged from disclosure and/or otherwise confidential. If a
> recipient of this e-mail communication is not an addressee (or an
> authorized representative of an addressee), such recipient is hereby
> advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, re-transmission or other
> dissemination or use of this e-mail communication (or any information
> contained herein) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an addressee and
> have received this e-mail communication in error, please advise the sender
> of that circumstance either by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800)
> 356-6818, immediately delete this e-mail communication from any computer
> and destroy all physical copies of same.
>
> *Replies Filtered:* Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or
> other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam"
> and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other
> e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not
> received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that
> reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail
> communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely
> manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which
> are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.
>
> [v4.30]
> _______________________________________________
> CLC-Discussion mailing list
> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20191202/513ac2fd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20191202/513ac2fd/image001-0001.png>